Wed, 28 Dec 2016 18:47:46 +0000WeeblySat, 16 Jul 2016 05:41:58 GMThttp://excell5.weebly.com/republic-of-england/which-form-of-brexit-works-for-england"Press the button: invoke article 50 and let's leave". That is the call from the #brexiters. But they don't address the essential question about our relationship with the EU post-exit.

Many point to the European Economic Area (EEA) and a Norway-style relationship with the EU (basically all the trade advantages, but also all the regulatory compliance and free movement of labour but no influence over EU policy and direction of travel.)

Norway has repeatedly warned us that EEA membership is no bed of roses. Here is a key figure from Norway writing to The Economist last week:

A future outside the EUThe Norwegian option for Britain once it leaves the European Union would indeed do the least damage to the British economy (“Adrift”, July 2nd). Norwegian businesses, which I represent, have lived well with the European Economic Area for 20 years. It secures full access to the single market. But, remember, we have to take on board all relevant EU legislation in order to keep a level playing field. If we don’t, the EU can respond by suspending the relevant chapter of the agreement. Since market access is so important, we have never used this right.We even had to establish a separate surveillance authority and court that can issue binding decisions if our government does not implement EU legislation correctly. Free movement of people is a core element of the agreement and we have to contribute substantial amounts to the EU’s poorer countries. If you are ready to take up the obligations and give up your voting rights you are welcome to the EEA. If not, it is not for you.KRISTIN SKOGEN LUNDDirector-generalConfederation of Norwegian EnterpriseOsloAnd EEA membership would probably be our least bad option. Woe betide us if we choose worse options.]]>Wed, 13 Jul 2016 09:58:15 GMThttp://excell5.weebly.com/republic-of-england/grassroots-must-lead-labour-nowLabour's support is going to leak to other parties as never before and this is why the only democratic way forward is to be grassroots-led The leakage to other parties is no such that no leader can claim to know what type of solutions and manifesto today's Labour party and its supporters actually want. This is Corbyn's message, I believe, and this is why he must remain as leader.

Here's my analysis of Labour's prospects:

Our constituencies are:* public sector workers - many will vote UKIP* unionised workers - many will vote UKIP or tory* the left-behind - have already deserted labour in favour of UKIP* optimistic internationalists - leeching away to Green or Left Unity* social ultra-progressives - leeching away to Green or (rarely but perhaps more again in future) to LibDems* republicans - despairing of labour ever making any noises in favour of a republic and hence tempted towards Greens* supporters of voting reform and permanent (but fairly managed) coalition government - their only home is LD or Green* pro-EU - likely to be swayed by Green and LD because of lukewarm EU support from Labour* instinctive anti-tory but still anti-UKIP - possibly the strongest part of the supporter base, but defined by revulsion to torykipism, not by any positive beliefs and no longer sufficiently numerous to win through in a GE.Scotland and Wales would have been on the list. Scotland is lost. Wales is on its way to UKIP.Where is the solid Labour core? Such as any exists, it is spread thinly across all those constituencies and therefore shares little by way of common policy platform that could form a coherent manifesto. Labour is fast becoming too much of a coalition party of separate parochial interests, incapable of portraying a convincing and attractive vision of how society could operate.Dear oh dear, I scarcely realised how bad things had become before I wrote this post.Perhaps the reason why Corbyn's vision is the right one is that it is bottom-up, grassroots-led. We are almost at the point now where the only way forward is to encourage all CLPs to go flat out for a membership drive, then a re-selection of all MPs and candidates, as a way of finding out what the remaining supporters really believe. Otherwise we are back to the messiah idea - and look where the last false prophet led us and how it turned out for people all over the middle east and beyond.]]>Mon, 27 Jun 2016 13:09:20 GMThttp://excell5.weebly.com/republic-of-england/up-the-creekIsn't it fab !

Prime Minister and Chancellor absent without leave.

The new order have no plan - and admitted it to Anna Botting live in front of the world.

The new order blame the old order for having no plan for the new order. They must have thought the milk and honey would just spontaneously start to flow.

The demagogues have already admitted that their promises were nothing of the sort and that the gullible part of the electorate has been sold a pup.

Michael Gove's partner calls for assistance from any experts who happen to be reading Facebook (the modern equivalent of launching a bottle with a paper inside it bearing the letters S O S ) - presumably she has now had quite enough of her own little expert hanging around at home whimpering about how Boris told him he would take care of all the difficult bits - "he said all I had to do was put the whoopee cushion on the chair and it would all be ok", he would take the caning for it, "it's all going to be such a jolly jape, stop worrying."

If Nicola Sturgeon stood at the head of an Army of National Unity I reckon I would fall in. We could quickly organise an armed takeover by Scotland of the entire UK, then gain re-entry to the EU under the name of "Republic of Scotland" !

Meanwhile a fair percentage of the morons who voted for this farce are wondering why they are still seeing immigrants on the tills in Aldi.

We now have to endure months of stagnation whilst we await the tory leadership contest.

The frustrated millions who thought we would be out by now will boil and boil and boil but will be unable to do anything about it - unless Farage decides to try some sort of stunt. In which case, things are about to get a lot worse.]]>Sat, 02 Apr 2016 08:50:42 GMThttp://excell5.weebly.com/republic-of-england/one-nationThe conservative party with its cunning Dick Dastardly trickster chancellor and his latest budget continue surreptitiously to boost the fortunes of their voters whilst simultaneously taking away from Labour's voters (or from those who don't vote at all.) The latest wheeze is the national living wage which (by the law of unintended consequences as amply explained by this article in The Economist) ends up hurting the poorest whilst putting more money in already-well-filled pockets. This is the old game, I guess - Labour could be accused of similar tricks.

This is no way to steer a nation of over 60 million people - 5 or 10 years of one broad swathe of society being stroked at the expense of another; followed by 5 or 10 years with the roles reversed.

An ideal politics would be one where there the conflicting needs and aspirations of different segments of society are constantly balanced and policy is designed to spread the burdens more equitably. This would be a politics in which no one party would be get to rule the roost for a term or two on a slender plurality as at present. A politics based on fairer representation but also with consensus governments put together in order to represent all the major segments of our society. It's a long way from the binary, dishonest and vandalistic game our main parties currently play.]]>Sun, 15 Feb 2015 21:29:16 GMThttp://excell5.weebly.com/republic-of-england/the-future-of-the-british-and-irish-isles

]]>Fri, 13 Feb 2015 14:34:51 GMThttp://excell5.weebly.com/republic-of-england/devolution-and-the-funding-squabbleThe devolution discussion is currently dominated by party-political chicanery and vested interest. Most of the tinkering proposed by the major parties should be ignored and proper plans put in place for designing new options for governing the UK - or its constituent nations.Governing a modern, stable polity is largely about collecting and re-distributing tax. In a rational, well-designed devolved regime, everyone can see that there is no magic money-tree and that the funding round is a zero-sum game: winners only win at the expense of losers. In contrast, piecemeal devolution as at present being proposed and (here and there) implemented in the UK has the advantage (for a politician) of not being a zero-sum game. Politicians can appear to promise (and sometimes deliver) real increases in funding for the devolved parts without the impact on the whole really being clearly understood. To the lucky devolved recipients, it is in fact very much like a magic money tree - and the rest don’t seem to notice. What better way could there be of wooing voters or of bribing would-be secessionists to stay within the fold?

Tories promise extra funding for core cities.Labour talk about cities and regions.All parties sing the praises of limited, demand-driven devolution rather than an up-front design process. How very British.No party is presenting a compelling big picture of how the whole UK might operate if and when completely devolved. I suppose they want to keep the magic money tree budding for as long as possible.England presents the most difficult obstacle. A devolved, federal UK would require England to be divided into regions, otherwise the English vote would dominate all proceedings and England would vote itself the largest share of the tax available for redistribution. The other nations, acting together, would be nowhere near a majority to counter-balance England. But this tactic of dividing England would risk stirring English independence. We therefore face a situation in which the only workable federal structure would almost certainly lead to a reversion back to a pre-UK picture with separate, sovereign nations of England, Wales and Scotland (and with the shame state of Northern Ireland urgently looking for a home).Three choices are therefore presented:

Bring about devolution through stealth (and make sure your political friends and sponsors are well rewarded - tories’ friends amongst the developers and entrepreneurs in a handful of successful cities; labour’s amongst favoured sections of local government).

Go for a full, federal solution with an English Parliament - and watch a dominant, unleashed England lead the way to independence for the 4 nations.

Recognise that the game is up for the UK, and initiate a series of multi-lateral discussions aimed at smoothing the path to mutual independence.

Option 1 is the weakest but is almost certainly what our timid politicians will go for.Option 3 is the strongest for the long-term but none of our politicians has the stature to sell the case for it.

Another British missed opportunity in the making.]]>Thu, 20 Nov 2014 22:59:15 GMThttp://excell5.weebly.com/republic-of-england/constitution-committee-submissionHere's a copy of my submission to the Parliamentary subcommittee on political and constitutional reform.

Written submission to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee 20 November 2014 The UK, and its member countries, are facing a number of constitutional and identity crises. These are as serious as those which faced Germany during the nineteenth century and probably as serious as anything affecting England since 1922, 1688 or perhaps 1649. A new written constitution is essential, and it is my clear preference of the three options, but only after some fairly seismic changes have been allowed to take place. The options of a constitutional code and constitutional consolidation act are interesting but of minor benefit. 45% of the Scottish voters chose independence from the UK. Our politicians are now tacking backwards and forwards, desperately trying to find party advantage from the aftermath of the referendum whilst still appearing to be doing something to keep the union together. There is no rallying point for a British state which could lead all parts of the nation to come together to create a new, all-UK settlement. There is such distrust and even resentment in all parts of the UK that the prospects of cooperative, deliberative design-and-build of a new constitution seem remote. Given this dismal background, it is time, I believe, for the nations to part company by mutual agreement for the sole reason that they will never be able to agree a mutually satisfactory settlement. England would always resent the smaller nations for getting what would be seen as too much influence and too much money; the smaller nations would always resent England for dominating all the apparatus of the UK and for allowing them too little say over their own affairs. In submitting my thoughts to the committee, I wish to structure them as follows: 1. Arrangements for the very short term 2. Transitional process towards independence 3. Constitution for England post-independence. 1. Arrangements for the very short term (a) Parliament must pass a law codifying the "promises" made to Scotland at the time of the referendum and establishing firm dates by which these are to be put in place. Given the likelihood that much of the implementation will be after the next general election, the political parties must state in their manifestos whether they support the promises being implemented. (b) England must be given a transitional parliament (a cut-down House of Commons hosting only the 533 English MPs). To give representation to the other countries pending their independence, the First Minister and a deputy of each of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should be given cabinet seats (the deputies being chosen to be the leaders of the second-largest party in the relevant national assembly / parliament). The Prime Minister would be the English First Minister. (c) A constitutional convention should be set up to spearhead the planning for the transition to independence. It should publish a recommended timescale as soon as possible and should then seek support in a UK-wide referendum for all registered voters of 16 years or more. (d) A law must be passed before the May general election stating that, in the event of there being no party with an overall majority, the parties must be ranked by the number of people who voted, nationally, for all of their candidates (ie by "popular vote") and the government must be formed by the two or if necessary three biggest parties. If the three biggest parties (by popular vote) still do not reach a majority of the popular vote, there must be a second election. 2. Transitional process towards independence Over an agreed period of time, all the functions of state must be dispersed to the point that each country is able to administer itself without recourse to central civil service, government, or quasi-governmental organisations. This should be overseen by a royal commission to ensure fair play. When independence is mutually declared, all four countries will have the British monarch as head of state and therefore the arbiter and guarantor of fair play would be the monarchy. The European Union must be persuaded to grant replacement membership to the new countries, and to add its supervision to the process of separation. 3. Constitution for England post-independence (My comments apply to the UK as a whole if independence is not forthcoming!) I see the priorities as:·a written constitution replacing all precedents and individual laws of bearing on the relationship between citizens and the UK or English state, and between different organs and bodies of the UK / English state·an elected Head of State to replace the monarchy·an elected Upper House·a referendum on a range of choices of funding allocation systems to parts of the UK (or, if independent, to England). This is one of the biggest causes of grievance and disharmony in the UK at present. Part of the problem is the opaque nature of the allocation, which gives rise to misunderstandings and exaggerations, fuelled by party propaganda. This must be replaced by a system chosen in a referendum and made very clear in its function, logic and calculations. ·English local government - along with its funding, its powers, its role and position in the constitution - must be rationalised as part of a new written constitution. Ideally, once independent (but not before), England should administer itself through a small number of large regions - probably along the lines of North, Midlands, South-East (including London) and South-West. This is mainly for reasons of transport and infrastructure planning. Only by having large regions is it possible on such a small territory with so many concentrations of population to mark boundaries which avoid splitting densely populated areas. The current core level of local government is the districts, boroughs, and unitary authorities. These should be retained. Two-tier counties, however, should be removed from the scene as they are neither big enough to be useful nor small enough to be local. However, to keep people happy, brown road signs must be put up on all borders of the 1898 counties (ie before the creation of London County Council) saying "Welcome to the Historic County of ....". The historic counties, however, should have no adminstrative or legal identity. Elections to the regions, and to the districts, boroughs and unitaries within each region, must be by a fair voting system such as FPTPA or STV.·There must be a steady alignment of all sub-national bodies (eg NHS, Police forces, Schools Commissioners, local government) so that ultimately each body's sub-divisions map onto the new regions. Part of the distrust of all organisations felt by more and more of the people is a result of not knowing who adminsters what in their locality / county / borough etc. This is hardly surprising, given how different the zoning is between different bodies.·Combined authorities and LEPs must be disbanded as they have been set up largly by themselves and without democratic will. Once the new regions are in place, rational arrangements for such functions as transport planning, regeneration, housing etc will be decided by the regions by democratically elected regional elections.·The central parliament should be much reduced in size. Representatives from the regional governments would be chosen to join the central government / cabinet. General elections would be for the sole purpose of directly choosing the head of state, prime minister, and cabinet. The government could be brought down if there were a sufficient majority of regional parliament members prepared to vote against it in a vote of confidence which would be called by the elected president. Cabinet ministers would be voted for, nationally, and the voting would therefore be proportional. Candidates would have to have served as regional ministers for a minimum period of time before being eligible for central office. Political parties must be barred from blocking any of their regional politicians from standing for election to central office.·The upper house should be even more drastically cut in numbers. Candidates for the upper house would only be allowed to stand for election if they could demonstrate that they had spent at least ten years (since turning 21) entirely outside the political process and institutions.·The judiciary would be appointed by the president subject to approval by both houses of parliament.·The church of England should be disestablished and should have no seats in any part of parliament or government.]]>Tue, 18 Nov 2014 11:56:50 GMThttp://excell5.weebly.com/republic-of-england/funding-higher-educationDebate continues to rage over the funding of Higher Education. It comes down to whether institutions are public goods or businesses. National public goods are normally primarily aimed at the national population; Higher Education on the other hand is available to the world (yes, in return for a payment, but that payment is not transparently netted off from the amount of subsidy paid by the UK govt or from the subsidy paid by students.)

Education must remain free up to age 18 or 19 but thereafter it really is a luxury good and must be paid for by the person benefiting from a life-enhancing and earnings-boosting privilege. It's too hard to test who is genuinely capable of performing satisfactorily on any particular degree course (and institutions now allow people onto courses with nothing more than a flimsy foundation qualification, particularly overseas students, often with limited English) therefore the only way of ensuring that unsuitable candidates don't apply is to make sure they know they will have to pay in full. This is likely to make people think more than twice about whether it's worth it and therefore deter many of those who see a spell in HE as a rite of passage and a way of putting off the need to get a proper job, pay rent etc.In a previous era, a publicly-funded HE sector was sustainable and simple. There were relatively few degree courses to monitor and therefore it was possible for government to make sure the public funding was spent wisely. Institutions were allowed to earn extra cash from corporations or from govt in return for doing research and other work.Now, the landscape is very different. There is a vast and growing array of courses and institutions. A huge number of them might be entirely worthless but this could be hidden for years or even decades. The government cannot possibly be expected to monitor such a diverse provision - and therefore it must not fund it. The Open University should be kept publicly funded and it should teach few enough courses to allow the govt to monitor it properly; every other institution should pay its own way, without ANY govt subsidy.That leaves just the question as to how people pay for their courses and for their subsistence.1. It is monstrous that scottish universities are free to scottish residents but not to others.2. The student loans administration seems to be beyond dysfunctional.3. Many will evade repayment of student loans - either through guile or genuine poverty. Therefore the easily-traced and easily-means-tested (= UK residents earning a fixed salary from steady employment) will bear an unfair share of the burden. A bit like general taxation really!Given all the above, what should be changed:1. OU to stay public; everywhere else 100% self-funding with no govt subsidy (but govt can still pay for research etc)2. You want a degree? Pay in cash, month by month. So you either save up the money, or you borrow it commercially (if anyone will lend it to you).3. You think the above is cruel and unfair? Apply to the OU.Not difficult, really. We just need politicians who are prepared to put simplicity and uncorruptibility above popularity.

Are the institutions overcharging for undergraduate degrees? At £27000, you bet they are! Only when people pay the full whack out of their own pockets will the institutions be forced to become more efficient and competitive. If this makes them lose quality, the OU will remain a beacon of state-sponsored quality.]]>Wed, 12 Nov 2014 07:22:20 GMThttp://excell5.weebly.com/republic-of-england/germany-and-england-constitutions-comparedAmong the voices calling for various changes to the state structure of the UK are those which compare and contrast Germany with the UK and with England. These voices are replying to the oft-repeated mantra that "regionalism works in Germany". To counter that, they say "Germany has a national parliament above its regions, and therefore why shouldn't England?"

In my view, England should have a national parliament and indeed it would be better off independent, as would the other countries hamstrung by the continuing UK (Scotland and Wales). (Northern Ireland must surely, one day, re-join the Republic?). In arguing for an English parliament or for an independent England, however, I would not use Germany (or Germany + Austria) as a model.

The closest model to the idea of England, over recent centuries, is Prussia. Prussia (= approximately "North Germany") industrialised, militarised and centralised early - not far behind England. By 1870 it created the equivalent of the UK by creating the ("second") German Empire with the King of Prussia (a descendent of Queen Victoria) becoming simultaneously the Emperor of Germany. Prussia was not, however, able to convince or force Austria into full union. This is similar to the situation in which we have the UK but a separate Ireland - an Ireland which would never have chosen to join the union, which was forced into it for a century before breaking free again.

For Germany, then, read the UK and for Prussia, read England.

What happened to Prussia? Why does the UK still have a distinct element called England whilst the idea and existence of Prussia have been all but erased from maps and constitutions? The easy answer is "military defeat". In the aftermath of 1918 and 1945 there were abdication, bloodbaths, revolutions, upheavals, and then what would nowadays be called "regime change" led by the US and ably abetted by France and the UK. Arguably, the regime which was implemented in 1945 was a well-structured federal republic.

Could the UK have managed its way to a more balanced, republican constitution so that we would now have a British Republic of Scotland, Wales and England in which each country had near-total control over its own affairs whilst enjoying a strategic symbiosis in the shape of a light and benevolent federal centre? Almost certainly - but it probably would have taken military defeat to smash the control of our establishment most of which inhabits an invisible country all of its own, increasingly to be found in the globalised military-industrial ether. The defeat was staved off and the establishment kept their hands on the levers of power and indeed of empire for a while longer.

When we point to Germany's federal centre, that is analogous to the UK's central government; NOT to England's (currently non-existent) central government.

Do we want to engineer a better Britain, along the lines of what might have been? Or do we conclude that it is too late; that few in Wales or Scotland would ever trust such an idea? If the latter (which is what I believe), then the English, Scots and Welsh should now be helping eachother in a joint escape from the UK establishment into a new future as three separate nations.]]>Sat, 08 Nov 2014 08:19:09 GMThttp://excell5.weebly.com/republic-of-england/the-english-question-a-short-term-solution-4-parliaments-1-cabinetVotes (aka divisions) in the House of Commons are mostly a rubber-stamping of cabinet decisions. The non-English MPs, even if they acted together, could raise less than a fifth of the total votes (117 of 650). As a way of representing their countries they could be described as pointless. Their countries now have their own parliaments, with increasing amounts of influence over their own national affairs. The voters in the three non-English countries should therefore readily accept the removal of their MPs from the House of Commons and in compensation the granting of automatic cabinet seats to their respective First Minister and deputy (the deputy chosen by the runner-up ie second-largest party in the country's assembly).

The House of Lords would provide a backstop check against any abuse of the new structure by English factions.

This would have the benefit of:

1. Simplifying the process of enacting UK-wide legislation.2. Airing non-English electorates' opinions directly within the real centre of decision-making (the cabinet) and in a way that bypasses UK-wide party control.3. Snuffing out the tiresome calls for English votes on English laws and other ways of supposedly rebalancing the UK constitutional settlement. The people clamouring for these gruesome fixes should be pushing for the dissolution of the UK, not for tinkering around with House of Commons procedure. In the short-term, "4-parliaments-1-cabinet" or 4P1C would give England control over its own government without needing any increase in the number of politicians. Meanwhile the non-English countries would be able to use their cabinet representation in order to opt out of any legislation they might not like.

Long term, the trend is undeniably towards the establishment of three independent sovereign countries in GB and a single united republic for the other island to the west. We should not invest much effort, time or expense in the meantime towards shoring up the dying UK.

It's also time to apply to international sporting associations for our remaining non-devolved sports teams to be split up. We compete as separate nations in the Commonwealth Games, Rugby, Rugby League, Football etc; it should be likewise for the Olympics.]]>